Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-05-28 Set Agenda ~~~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING/CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION/COUNCIL MEETINGIWORK SESSION MEETING AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call Wednesday, May 28, 2008 6:30 p.m. II. PUBLIC HEARING 1. SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program) (Pages a-I) III. OPEN FORUM: An opportunity for members of the public to address the City Council on items not on the current agenda. Items requiring Council action maybe deferred to staff or Boards and Commissions for research and future Council Agendas if appropriate. You will be limited to two (2) minutes and we ask that you conduct yourself in a professional, courteous manner, and refrain from the use of profanity. Failure to abide by this policy may result in the loss of your privilege to speak. Persons wishing to speak will be required to complete a sign-up sheet and give it to the mayor or a staff person prior to the start of the meeting. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. May 14,2008, City Council Meeting Minutes (Pages 1-6) 2. May 14, 2008, City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes (Pages 7-9) VII. CONSENT AGENDA 1. City of Centerville May 15,2008 through May 28, 2008 Claims (Page 10 & lOa) VI. A W ARDS/PRESENT ATIONS/APPEARANCES 1. Mr. Greg Kieselhorst, Centerville Lion's - Fete des Lacs Special Event Permit, Temporary On-Sale Liuor License, Noise, & Fireworks Permits (Pages 11-22) VII. OLD BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS 1. Res. #08-0.xx - Appointing a Fire Chief for Centennial Fire District (Pages 23-24) --I IX. ANNOUNCEMENTSIUPDATES 1. City Administrator, Mr. Dallas Larson 2. Storm Damage Update X. ADJOURNMENT COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION (Closed unless otherwise noted) I. CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call II. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 1. Performance Review - City Administrator, Mr. Dallas Larson (Cont'd) 2. Performance Review - Public Works Dir./Building Official, Mr. Paul Palzer RECONVENE REGULARLY SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING III. ADJOURNMENT COUNCIL WORK SESSION I. CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call II. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 1. Nuisance Issues - Ordinance Enhancement 2. Chapter 154 - Review & Provide Feedback to Planning & Zoning Commission 3. Code Revision 4. CSAH14 Update 5. Schedule Budget Work Session III. ADJOURNMENT * * REMINDERS * * Observance of Memorial Day - May 26, 2008 - City Hall Closed Council Meeting - May 28, 2008, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting - June 7, 2008, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting - June 8, 2008, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers Draft- Draft-Draft - Draft-Draft -Draft Draft-Draft -Draft Draft - Draft-Draft Draft-Draft -Draft ANNUAL REPORT for 2007 MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS (MS4s) For Calendar Year 2007 Due June 30, 2008 USE OF THIS FORM IS MANDATORY By completing this Annual Report form, you are providing the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) with a summary of your status of compliance with permit conditions, including an assessment of the appropriateness of your identified best management practices (BMPs) and progress towards achieving your identified measurable goals for each of the minimum control measures as required by part VI D. ofthe MS4 Permit. Submit your annual report by June 30, 2008 to: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Municipal Division 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 If you would like to obtain an electronic copy of the MS4 Annual Report for 2007 form, please visit: www.pca.state.mn.us/water/stormwater/stormwater-ms4 .html If you have further questions, please contact one ofthese MPCA staff members (call toll-free 800-657-3864): . Keith Cherryholmes 651-296-6945 . Joyce Cieluch 218-846-7387 . Scott Fox 651-296-9433 Centerville City MS4 Name ofMS4 Dallas Larson Name of Contact Person 6514293232 Telephone (including area code) 1880 Main St Mailing Address Centerville MN 55038 City State ZIP code O:\STORMW-II2007MS-II2007-02 SWPPP annual report - Randy.doc a.. Draft - Draft- Draft- Draft-Draft -Draft Draft-Draft -Draft Draft- Draft-Draft Draft-Draft -Draft The permit requires each MS4 to implement a public education program to distribute educational materials to th community or conduct equivalent outreach activities about the impacts of stormwater discharges on water bodies an the steps that the public can take to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff. [Part V.G.l.a] NOTE: Please indicat which of the following distribution methods you used during the 2007 calendar year. Indicate the number distribute in 2007 in the spaces provided (enter "0" if the method was not used or "NA" if the data does not exist): Media type Number of media Number of times published Circulation/Audience Example: Brochures: 3 different brochures published 5 times about 10,000 Brochures: 2 different brochures Published once Continually available Newsletter: 2 2 1475 Posters: Newspaper articles: Web sites:* 1 2 Continual Entire Community Utility bill inserts: Radio ads: Television ads: Govt Access TV: Other: * If you use your web site as a tool to distribute stormwater educational materials, indicate the number of hits to the stormwater page during 2007 in the space above and provide the URL reference here: www.centervillemn.com 480 hits 2 1475 Continual Continual Entire Community B. What stage of development would you assign to each area of your stormwater education program? (If there aJ1 multiple components for a Minimum Control Measure (MCM) providing the average stage of the most significan components - check the one box that most accurately reflects the overall stage for that MCM). MCM 1: 0 Not started 0 Research 0 Development 0 Implementation I2l Program fully in place MCM 2: 0 Not started 0 Research 0 Development 0 Implementation I2l Program fully in place MCM 3: 0 Not started 0 Research 0 Development 0 Implementation I2l Program fully in place MCM 4: 0 Not started 0 Research 0 Development 0 Implementation I2l Program fully in place MCM 5: 0 Not started 0 Research 0 Development 0 Implementation I2l Program fully in place MCM 6: 0 Not started 0 Research 0 Development 0 Implementation I2l Program fully in place C. Have you developed partnerships with other MS4s, watershed districts, local or state governments, educational institutions, etc. to assist you in fulfilling the requirements for Minimum Control Measure I? D. List those entities with which you have a partnership agreement to meet the requirements of this MCM and describe the nature of the agreement(s) (list if level of effort exceeded 10 hours): Informal Agreement with Rice Creek Watershed District to coordinate education efforts and materials N ~11'ff~!.(~';f;~ .-f \1 :t1(~t~ 1~(,1 , "^ u~.~[-'I*'W ,,,.;r . '",- ^~ .( .. ;.. i~, f ~ ~. ":r:~~ ~, ~:. ~.:f:~~.~~~~~~'~:~'J +,f ~ ,> i'~.~ti,j~i>~~ ~~'t.J. ~4 l.~...,:t-?:~ ,..: '""-.~ '" ~..... "",:;\A,~ ~i>'I~ ~" '.f . , A. Did you hold a public meeting for calendar year 2007 and discuss your Stormwater Pollution I2l Yes D N(] Prevention Program (SWPPP)? [Part V.G.l.e] ~. What was the date of the public meeting? May 28, 2008 ~. How many citizens attended specifically for stormwater (excluding board/council members and staff)? O:\STORMW-l\2007MS-l\2007-02 SWPPP annual repon - Randy.doc t Draft - Draft- Draft- Draft-Draft - Draft Draft - Draft- Draft Draft - Draft- Draft Draft-Draft -Draft . Was the public meeting a stand-alone meeting for stormwater or was it combined with some other function such as a City Council meeting? If you did not hold a public meeting on your SWPPP in 2007, explain why: Stand-alone 12] Combined . Each MS4 must receive and consider input from the public. Input must be considered prior to submittal of your annual report. During your public meeting, did you receive written and/or oral input on your SWPPP? [Part V.G.2.b.1-3]. . Do you plan to or have you already incorporated any comments into your next SWPPP update? [Part V.G.2.c] If yes, list items: . If you answered "Yes" to part F above but no SWPPP changes will be made check here: D .: H;<;~\',~' :',' <.: ..<J..~ ff: ..: f, ,,~lt'W"~\1".""'" ~i\1;''Ilt ~c "*'~ 'y.,\-}' ,~';. ',' '>1~<'i. ': 'j "~~., ;\.' . ...,', t" _~~~ ';l;ll ",s"'"~I.~i~~-rA~PJ~t".' ~,!: ',~ <*"~",",~~kA:~~r,,,~'-5',~!i"~4....to.c >~ .A~, l.:tll'~ ~~,...",>.,.'$'",:, \;.~>~'" ~ .; ,/', 'l ~~~~tf,~'''''':-p he permit requires MS4s to develop, implement and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges a efined in 40 CFR I 22.26(b )(2) in your SWPPP. You must also select and implement a program of appropriate BMPs an easurable goals for this minimum control measure. . Have you completed a storm sewer system map by June 30, 2008 in accordance with the requirements of the permit? If yes, describe how it was completed: D Hardcopy only 0 GIS system [81 CAD D Other "digital" system: If No to A. above, please: NOTE: The complete storm sewer system map must be finished by June 30, 2008. [Part V.G.3.a] Has an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism been adopted to prohibit illicit discharges or other non-stormwater discharges from entering your system? If yes, provide the date the regulatory mechanism was adopted: _' If no, provide an estimated date of adoption: 3/1/2005. . Have you completed the tasks according to the schedule listed in your BMP program for illicit discharge detection and elimination? . Describe any changes in development status or the time line/implementation schedule provided in your SWPPP? he permit requires that each MS4 develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in any stormwate noff to your small MS4 from construction activities within your jurisdiction that result in a land disturbance of greate han or equal to one acre or less than one acre but is part of a common plan of development that will be one acre 0 eater. [Part V.GA.] . Have you adopted an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism that regulates stormwater rono from construction activities that result in a land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre 0 less than one acre which are a part of a common plan of development or sale that will ultimatel disturb one acre or more? NOTE: Your regulatory mechanism must be fully developed an implemented within six months from the extension of permit coverage. . The BMPs you listed in 2006 are checked below. Which of the following BMPs and pollution prevention management measures have been incorporated into your regulatory mechanism during 200n Check all that apply: O:\STORMW-I\2007MS-l\2007-02 swppp annual report - Randy.doc c., Draft-Draft - Draft - Draft-Draft - Draft Draft - Draft- Draft Draft-Draft -Draft Draft-Draft -Draft Y - Temporary erosion controls 0 Added in 2007 Y - Record keeping for rainfall and inspections 0 Added in 2007 Y - Permanent erosion controls 0 Added in 2007 Y - Waste controls for hazardous waste 0 Added in 2007 Y - Waste controls for solid waste 0 Added in 2007 Y - Dewatering and basin draining 0 Added in 2007 Y - Regular inspections by site operators 0 Added in 2007 Y - Site plan submittal including erosion and sediment control BMPs 0 Added in 2007 Y - BMP maintenance 0 Added in 2007 Y - Site plan review and approval prior to activity on site 0 Added in 2007 N - Permanent stormwater management facility approval 0 Added in 2007 N - Other: 0 Added in 2007 The regulatory mechanism sanctions included to ensure compliance and enforcemen component are in 2006 are checked below. Which of the following actions does your MS use? Also, check all additional sanctions added in 2007: N - Verbal warnings Y - Written warnings Y - Stop-work orders Y - Fines DYes ON Y - Forfeit of security bond money Y - Withholding of certificate of occupancy N - Other: o Added in 2007 o Added in 2007 o Added in 2007 o Added in 2007 o Added in 2007 o Added in 2007 o Added in 2007 he permit requires each MS4 to develop, implement, and enforce a program to address stormwater runoff from new evelopment and redevelopment projects within your jurisdiction that disturb an area greater than or equal to one acre, including projects less than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale that discharge into our small MS4. Your program must ensure that controls are in place that would prevent or reduce water quality impacts. You must also select and implement a program of appropriate BMPs and measurable goals for this minimum ontrol measure. NOTE: The MS4 permit requirements associated with this Minimum Control Measure must be fully evelo ed and im lemented b 6/30/08. . Have you developed and implemented strategies which include requirements for a combination of structural and/or non-structural BMPs appropriate for your community? . Is an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism currently in place to address post-construction runoff from new development and redevelopment projects to the extent allowable under law? If yes, provide the date the regulatory mechanism was adopted: 3/9/2005. If no, provide an estimated date of ado tion:. O:\STORMW-I\2007MS-I\2007-02 swppp annual report - Randy.doc d Draft - Draft- Draft- Draft-Draft. Draft Draft-Draft - Draft Draft-Draft. Draft Draft - Draft-Draft . Is a plan in place to ensure adequate long-tenn operation and maintenance of BMPs installed as a result of these re uirements? . How are you funding the long-tenn operation and maintenance of your stonnwater management system? o Grants ~ Stonnwater utility fee o Taxes o Other: he pennit requires each MS4 to develop and implement an operation and maintenance program that includes a training omponent and has the ultimate goal of preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from municipal operations. Your rogram must include employee training to prevent and reduce stonnwater pollution from activities such as park and pen space maintenance, fleet and building maintenance, new construction and land disturbances, and stonnwater system maintenance. . Is your MS4 current on development of all the elements listed to the time line/implementation schedule listed in your BMPs for this MCM?? . Did you complete all the tasks in the SWPPP scheduled for implementation in 2007? . Indicate the total number of structural pollution control devices (manholes, grit chambers, sumps, floatable skimmers, etc) within your MS4, how many were inspected, and calculate the percentage: Total Number Number Inspected Percentage Structural Pollution Control Devices: 1 100 . As a result of your inspections, did you repair, replace, or maintain any structural pollution 0 y es ~ N control devices? . For each BMP below, indicate the total number within your MS4, how many of each BMP type were inspected, and calculate the percentage: BMP Type Total Number Outfalls* 33 Sediment basins/ponds 80 TOTAL 113 Number Inspected 33 25 58 Percentage 100 31 51 * outfalls as defined in the pennit and guidance he pennit requires that any MS4 that discharges to a Water of the State which appears on the current U.S. EPA pproved list of impaired waters under Section 303(d) ofthe Clean Water Act review whether changes to your SWPPP ay be warranted to reduce the impact of your discharge [IV.D] . Have you identified all impaired waters within your jurisdiction, based on the 2006 303(d) listing, which receive stonnwater discharge from your MS4? Check here if your MS4 has no impaired waters: 0 ~Yes ON O:\STORMW-l\2001MS-l\2001-02 swppp annual report - Randy.doc e Draft - Draft-Draft - Draft- Draft- Draft Draft-Draft -Draft Draft-Draft -Draft Draft-Draft -Draft . Do you have a process in place to identify and update your SWPPP based on the list of impaired waters which receive discharges from your MS4 as new waters are added to the 303(d) list? ~Yes ON . Have you determined that any stormwater discharges from your MS4 are negatively impacting any impaired water(s); for which you have or plan to revise to your SWPPP to address the loading? DYes I2JN . Provide the following information of the individual responsible for conducting the review of discharges to impaired waters and any associated BMP modifications: Name: Paul Palzer Title: Public Works Director Phone: 651-429-4750 . Did you make a change to any identified BMPs or measurable goals that were submitted with your permit application? [Part V.H.] If yes, explain: . Briefly list the BMPs using their unique SWPPP identification numbers you used in your SWPPP or any measurable goals that will be changed in your updated SWPPP, and why they have changed: (Attach a separate sheet ifnecessary) . Did you rely on any other entities (MS4s, consultants or contractors) to satisfy any portion of your SWPPP? If yes, please identify below the entity and for what activities: Rice Creek Watershed District coordinated construction permits he person with overall administrative responsibility for SWPPP implementation must sign the annual report. This erson must be duly authorized and should be the person who signed the MS4 permit application or a successor. certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in ccordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible or gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and omplete (Minn. R. 7001.0070). I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment (Minn. R. 7001.0540). X Authorized Signature (This person must be duly authorized to sign the Date annual report for the MS4) Larson Last Name 1880 Main Street Mailing Address Centerville City 651-429-3232 Telephone (include area code) O:\STORMW-I\2007MS-l\2007-02 SWPPP annual report - Randy.doc Dallas First Name Administrator Title MN 55038 State ZIP code dlarson@centervillemn.com E-mail Address -P CITY OF CENTERVILLE OS/28/08 3:29 PM Page 1 tervi{{e *Check Summary Register@ UPDATE 'L,la6tls!i~J 1S57 Name Check Date Check Amt 10100 MAIN STREET BANK Paid Chk# 023382 ANOKA COUNTY PROPERTY RE 5/28/2008 Paid Chk# 023383 BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERL 5/28/2008 Paid Chk# 023384 GAMETIME 5/28/2008 Paid Chk# 023385 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRU 5/28/2008 Paid Chk# 023386 LINCOLN MUTUAL LIFE & CASUA 5/28/2008 Paid Chk# 023387 MCFOA 5/28/2008 Paid Chk# 023388 MENARDS - FOREST LAKE 5/28/2008 Paid Chk# 023389 MEYER, JOHN 5/28/2008 Paid Chk# 023390 MINN. DEPT. OF HEALTH 5/28/2008 Paid Chk# 023391 QWEST 5/28/2008 Paid Chk# 023392 SPRINT 5/28/2008 Paid Chk# 023393 US BANK CORPORATE TRUST S 5/28/2008 Paid Chk# 023394 LAMETTI & SONS INC 5/28/2008 Paid Chk# 023395 ANDREW ROSS & PATRIOT BAN 5/28/2008 Paid Chk# 500093E BI-WEEKL Y ACH 5/1/2008 Paid Chk# 500103E BI-WEEKL Y ACH 5/15/2008 Paid Chk# 500114E BI-WEEKL Y ACH 5/29/2008 Total Checks MAY 2008 $400.00 BOND CERT. FEE $9,171.01 GENERAL - SERV THRU 4-26-08 $1,182.19 FLIP SLIDE $25,724.00 INS. COVERAGE 3-1-08 THRU 3-1- $204.08 LIFE INSURANCE FOR JUNE 2008 $70.00 T. BENDER MEMBERSHIP DUES FOR $52.53 SUPPLIES $1,512.87 REIMBURSE FLEX SPEND. MEDICAL $1,524.00 WATER TEST FEE 4-1-08 THRU 6-3 $417.42 651-429-4750 - PH SERV THRU 6- $457.35 CELL PH SERV THRU 5-14-08 $48,151.32 #802311000 - GEN. OBLG. IMPROV $533.24 WATERMAIN REPAIR - ADDNL COSTS $12,343.00 TRACIE MCBRIDE PARK PLAYGROUND $13,064.57 $12,650.43 $13,983.66 $141,441.67 / ZJ {L; MAY 28 2008 11:26 AM FR ZELLE,HOFMANN,VOELBEL36 9100 TO 2~074 P.01 ZELLE, HOFMANN, VOELBEL, MASON & GETTE LLP FAX TRANSMISSION 500 Washington Avenue South, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 Phone: 612.339.2020 Fax: 612.336.9100 WNW. zelle. com Date: May 28, 2008 From: Pages: Subject: Katrina Vermeulen 2, including this cover sheet Matter Name: File Number: Tag Number: }-100-0000 To: Council Members Company City of Centerville Phone # Fax # 651-429-8629 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Please distribute to each council member. Thank you. If you do not receive all pages, please call our fax center 612-336-9130 The information contained in this facsimile message is anomey privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the: intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution Or copying of this communication is stricUy prohibited. If you have received this: communication in error. please immediately notify U!l by telephone and return the original message to us at the above lIddress via the U.S. postaJ service. 300168vl MAY 28 2008 11:26 AM FR ZELLE,HOFMANN,VOELBEL36 9100 TO 2~074 P.02 TO: FROM: RE: CENTERVILLE CITY COUNCIL KATRINA VERMEULEN ROAD/W A TER PROJECT I am writing the City Council to reiterate mine and many residents' view that this project should either be delayed or greatly scaled back. I was appalled at some of the council members' statements that I read in the paper last week that they thought this project should still proceed. Did you not attend the same public hearing that I did? Not one resident was in favor of the project as presented. Comments in the paper by council members worried about future council's burdens are not warranted. I am not going to repeat all the comments about not proceeding with this project as I know you have heard them and apparently are choosing to ignore the residents of the City of Centerville. I thought as elected officials your job is to represent the residents of Centerville. I am a single parent and live on Peltier Lake Drive. I found out recently that two more of my neighbors will shortly be putting their homes up for sale. That is in addition to the two that are presently for sale. I am afraid I will be forced to do the same if this project proceeds as presented. My income is pretty well fixed. How do you propose that I pay for this? We are not talking about just a few hundred dollars. We are talking about thousands and thousands of dollars. In addition, Anoka County has come through and has raised the assessed values on the homes on Peltier Lake Drive, some over $100,000.00. Again, how am I and others on Peltier Lake Drive, supposed to pay for these additional property taxes in addition to the proposed road and water assessments? Plain and simple, there are residents in the City of Centerville that just cannot afford this. What do you not understand about that? With the economic downturn and no end in sight, gas and food prices skyrocketing, you are forcing people into selling their homes. Who is going to buy these homes? Do you think people will be flocking to this City to buy homes with sizable future assessments on each property? The City will end up with run down homes and more foreclosures. Have you looked at the recent developments? Are they 100% occupied? Is this the future of the City? It seems to me and many residents that you really don't care about the residents. That is a very sad portrait to paint. I realize that decisions that are made will always not be welcome by all, but in this case, I just can't believe that the council is going to ignore the views of the people of Centerville and let this project proceed. I never thought I would want to move from Centerville. I have lived here for over 20 years and I am sad that I feel that I have to move my family from their home where they have grown up. I am not the only resident that feels this way. There are many, you are just not hearing us. I pray that you do. cc: Quad Community Press 'cr. ** TOTAL PAGE.02 ** Page 1 of2 Teresa Bender From: Melody Meath [mmeath@q.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 27,20084:26 PM To: Mary Capra; Michelle Lasko; Tom Lee; Jeff Parr; Linda Broussard Vickers Cc: Dallas Larson; Teresa Bender Subject: Comments on 5/21 work session Mayor Capra and Council Members, The feeling I got from the work session is that you all want to do as much as you can on this road project based on the bids Dallas presented from Circle Pines. By the end of the meeting you were all saying, "If we don't do it now it will just be more expensive later." Was I the only one that heard Dallas say these bids that were coming in lower than expected were for the underground work? Not the road construction costs. It seemed to me that you all missed that comment. What happens when these bids don't come in as low as you expect them to? Do you have any guarantees that they will come in low? If you proceed with the project as you discussed, omitting LaValle, Mound, Center Street and Robin Lane area, you are still talking a substantial project and a lot of it is still road construction. Mark Statz estimated this at 4.5 million. Did you all forget about the May 1 hearing? The residents are upset about this project not just because of the timing with the economy. It's that they've seen your track record for spending our money and now you propose this extensive road project that you want us to pay for that should've and could've been planned for instead of assessing people these outrageous amounts. Do you all remember what former Mayor Tom Willharber said at the May 1 hearing? Let me remind you. Quote: "Had issue on roads and I voted wrong along with the rest of the council and we ended up with a lawsuit that was a losing proposition for everyone concerned not only the council but the citizens." End quote. Maybe you should all learn from his experience because if you don't start listening to your constituents, that is where this project is headed. I wonder if we'll be able to afford this project with Governor Pawlenty's property tax cap. Sincerely, Joseph and Melody Meath 5/28/2008 Page 2 of2 This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 5/28/2008 Page 1 of 1 Teresa Bender From: Meath, Melody [mmeath@ericksenroed.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 7:31 AM To: Dan & Mary Capra Subject: question and comments on work session 5/21 Mayor Capra, With all the confusion with the maps I am not clear where we are at on Mill Road (north of Prairie) Was I hearing it is back to a "B" construction, a full recon with water main or were you all just pointing at that because it was the only map? I thought it was decided that the water main can be put in the boulevard. Is it what the 3/20 map states, a "03" to the north and 02 to the south? (This was the last map we received at the May 1 hearing) Please clarify. Also, what happens if you don't use the sidewalk 1 trail grant at this time? In your own words you stated that the work on Mill Road is all stemming from the trail. If you wait until Mill Road needs a full recon., at that point, can't you RE-APPL Y for this grant for the sidewalks and trials? (which is when I think the trail should go in) I personally think Mill Road is one of the best streets we have right now. (maybe the chunks from the snowplow damage should be fixed, but other than that... 00) and to tear it up to put this trail in is just irresponsible to me and I truly am not just saying that because it is in my front yard. When Mill Road truly NEEDS to be done that is when you propose putting a trail in and water main too for that matter, not the other way around. Even with the grant money, you still have to spend money to get that money, right? Ps. If you do not respond today (before 3:00) please respond to my home email (mmeath@q.com) or call me. Pss. I don't know if you are aware of this website, but after the comments I heard last night I think maybe a reminder of what your constituents are saying is in order. Check it out. http://www.topix.com/ Click on "Centerville Spending" Thanks - Melody This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 5/28/2008 Page 1 of2 Teresa Bender From: Melody Meath [mmeath@q.com] Sent: Sunday, May 18,200811:57 AM To: Mary Capra; Michelle Lasko; Tom Lee; Jeff Parr; lindabv@msn.com Cc: Dallas Larson; Teresa Bender Subject: Comments on 5/14 work session Attachments: sidewalk_correspondance with Dallas.pdf Mayor Capra and Council Members, First of alii want to say that I was encouraged by the comments and questions I heard at the work session on Wednesday. It seemed to me that you were all listening at the May 1 hearing and actually heard what your constituents were saying to you. Maybe sometimes with hostility but when people's emotions do the talking for them that is how it comes out sometimes. I also want to say that I appreciate all your time and effort you all put into our community. The deeper I get involved, the more I've come to realize what a truly difficult job you all volunteered for. I also hope that you all have come to the same conclusion that I have. That we are all on the same team and I hope we can find a way to satisfy everyone's issues with the outcome of this project. Of course not everyone will be happy with what is decided, but I think that would be impossible. Now here are my comments about the work session. You didn't think I was done did you? 1) The issue about the corroded bolts being in the special assessments when it shouldn't have been because it is a maintenance issue is really weighing on my mind. According to Dallas, that was a total of $100,000 that was being tacked on to the assessments. A substantial amount if you ask me. It makes me wonder what other "hidden" items are in these assessments that shouldn't be. Who is looking out for the resident's interest when coming up with the assessments? Shouldn't somebody be questioning these items? I realize they are only estimates at this point but when they true numbers come in, I for one "m going to want a complete break down of what I am paying for. 2) Then there's the issue of the collector streets. My thoughts here are that the current Assessment Policy does not address this at all. I believe this Policy needs to be updated and revised to include this issue. I don't know if "new" collector streets will be constructed in Centerville but as Mr. Statz stated, those streets would be designed differently and the difference in cost would be picked up by the City. It should state something to the effect that a collector street receives a more aggressive maintenance schedule than a regular residential street because of the sheer volume of cars on it, and that would be picked up by the City 100%. As for Center Street in 2004, I believe that is a non-issue because my understanding is that it was not designed any differently, but maybe it receives a more aggressive maintence schedule now because it is a collector street. 3) My last comment is in regards to your topic of discussion for your next work session, the trails and sidewalks. As I've stated before I feel these items are luxuries and are not necessary at this time. I'm not saying never, I'm just saying NOT NOW. I understand the City has a Comprehensive Plan in place that includes the "linking" of our sidewalks and trails. I think it is logical to include the sidewalk if the street is scheduled for a total recon. However, I think it is irresponsible to include these sidewalks and trails if this is not the case and the street only needs minimal road work done. This would follow the same logic I heard from Mr. Paar and Mr. Lee when referring to the water main. It is just not the right timing. Hopefully the economy will pick up and when we all have money in our pockets again this wouldn't be such a sore spot for everyone. This brings me to how you are assessing these sidewalks and trials. Back in October, I asked Dallas who pays for trails and he told me the City pays 100% of trails. As for the sidewalks, according to our Assessment Policy where it states "the abutting properties shall be assessed along with the street costs" I concluded that only the people with sidewalks abutting their property would be assessed for their portion. If I understand the concept of a policy, you are supposed to follow it, otherwise what exactly is the policy for? 5/28/2008 Page 2 of2 Since that time, I've been told several different things regarding how the sidewalks and trails are assessed and none of them are as I've stated above. (See attached correspondence with Dallas Larson on this issue) As J understand it now, a portion (25%) of the sidewalks and trail costs are being assessed to everyone affected in this 2009 Improvement project. This is not how our policy is written now so I'm not sure how you can do it this way. I don't see how a sidewalk connection from Brian Way to that small park over there is going to benefit MY property value by one penny, so how can you assess me 25% for it? Now, the people in this project are paying TWICE for the sidewalks and trails that everyone uses and benefits from. Now how is that fair? Now back to the Comprehensive Plan issue. Since this sidewalk I trail issue is all stemming from lithe big picture" of the Comprehensive Plan, it only makes sense to incorporate this into our Assessment Policy. I've researched other cities our size that have done this. Their policy states that if sidewalks and trials are part of the Comprehensive Plan, they shall NOT be assessed to the property owners but paid 100% by the City. Everyone benefits, everyone pays. I've said my peace... .....for now. I hope you take my comments I questions seriously when considering where this project is headed. Again, I commend you for your service. Sincerely, Melody Meath This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 5/28/2008 Page 1 of5 Meath, Melody From: Dallas Larson [dlarson@centervillemn.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:14 PM To: Meath, Melody Subject: RE: question on cost estimates ~ ( I believe that I sent you the assessment policy. If you don't find it, please let me know. I understand your frustration. There is an element of paying twice. Once in the direct benefit assessment and once as a taxpayer that carries part of the bIll for the portion absorbed by the "city." Any project that has a cost that exceeds the direct benefit to assessed properties will have a remaining portion paid by all taxpayers. If the project goes forward, we will provide and accounting of how the numbers are used to arrive at your assessment. Dallas Larson. Administrator City of Centerville 651-429-3232 -----Original Message----- From: Meathl Melody [maflto:mmeath@ericksenroed.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:01 PM To: dlarson@centervillemn.com Subject: RE: question on cost estimates \,~ ( Wow - I have to say that does not seem fair to me at all. 100% should be paid by all taxpayers since all benefit all should pay. I'll say it again. It seems the people being assessed are being hit up twice to pay for the sidewalks and trails. So people not included in this project only pay once. Do you understand my frustration.??? Where is this policy you are referring to? Is this the one you mailed to me? The Assessment Policy? When we get the true assessments will all of this be itemized so I can see exactly what I'm paying for and how you came up with my assessment? Melody Meath El'icksen Roed & Associates phone: 651-251-7570 6 From: Dallas Larson [mailto:dlarson@centervllfemn.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 200811:41 AM To: Meath, Melody SUbject: RE: question on cost estimates \ The City's assessment policy treats sidewalks as appurtenances to the streets. Trails and sidewalks are part of the street costs and spread out among the properties along with street pavements. The City (all taxpayers of the city) pays 75% of the cost including the sidewalks and the remaining 25% is assessed. I didn't write the policy, but it was in place at the time the pavement management plan was implemented, \1- beginning with the 2004 Street Project. C. dOLS vV~~~~{ f')Jt .,y Dallas Larson, Administrator I . :vvl~ c.. Lt. r.t ,1 ~ ~/v I ,i'~\ \ City of Centerville vv \ I ,'f vv ~.t bI .} ~ I J (y 651-429-3232 ,~o\ IGI s <, e~ .. JJ'\ 'C '\ , ~. V j,'vv>r ~I 01,.J'~ ~fU\J 1~ 0 '1;(., 0 ~ -p 1- fJ(,lJ .~\ XI.<~nI ~\~ A I ~ t l, I Vi ' ~\vv L 5/16/2008 ~ e 5/16/2008 Page 2 of5 ...--Orlglnal .Message---- From: Meath, Melody [mailto:mmeath@ericksenroed.com] Sent; Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:02 AM To: dlarson@centervlllemn.com Subject: RE: question on cost estimates Thanks for your quick response. Maybe I'm just not getting it but your #1 doesn't make sense to me. 'Mly are the people getting assessed paying for the sidewalks and trails twice? Once in their assessments and then in their property taxes. 'Mlen this process began we were told that trails were picked up 100% by the city (taxpayers) and I thought you only get assessed for sidewalks if it runs by your property. There is no sidewalk being proposed only a trail running by my pf()perty so to me my assessment would have NO COSTS ASSloelATED WITH THE SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS. If I'm miSSing something I apologize and I would really like you to explain this to me. Melody Meath Ericksen Roed & Associates phone: 651-251-7570 From: Dallas Larson [mailto:dlarson@centervillemn.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 20088:27 AM To: Meath, Melody Cc: 'Statz, Mark R'; Teresa Bender Subject: RE: question on cost estimates ( 1. Trails and sidewalks are about 10% of the street cost. Everyone who is assessed for street would have a small piece of the sidewalk and trail cost. 2. The difference between $6.3 million and $7.8 million is the estimate for service Iin.es to the homes. This is a possible accommodation to those who would be getting city watermain. or for those who might have been included in prior projects that haven't hooked on yet. That is completely optional for the property owners and would be 100% assessed to those who choose to participate. Or the Council could choose not to offer this option, in which case the $6.3 million project cost would be anticipated. 3. Assessments for streets are based upon frontages. The short side is calculated at the unit rate for that type of improvement multiplied by the frontage. The long side is 20% of that frontage times the unit rate for whatever improvement type was installed for that street side. In your case the short side is 100 feet, 20% of the long side would be 29 feet. I probably should have been more precise in your calculation since your entire frontage was figured at $29.30 per foot. If the short side would have been calculated at $43.34, your assessment estimate would have been $4180. The difference is relatively minor and the additional precision can be done at a later stage. Since there is a lot more 01 type improvement. the unit price is lower. The estimated assessment rate for 01 is $29.30/ft and 03 is 43.34/ft. As you said, these are only estimates. If there are adjustments needed. they would be made in the assessment stage of the project. if the project proceeds. Dallas Larson} Administrator City of Centerville 651-429-3232 ---Original Message----- From: Meath, Melody [mailto:mmeath@ericksenroed.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:07 AM To: dlarson@centervillemn.com (&\ ~ 0} 5/16/2008 Page 3 of5 Cc: tbender@centervillemn.comi Statz, Mark R Subject: FW: question on cost estimates Dallas, ( 1. Please see my response below from April 8. (in red) I'm still unclear as to how the sidewalks and trails are figured out, as far as who pays for them. Please clarify... .again. 2. Also, on the estimated assessments we received on Sat in the mail, the bottom of sheet 2, states the project is estimated at 7.8 million. Hasn't this been shaved down to 6.3 million? (see Appendix B in Bonestroo's latest cost estimates) So what number is your project estimates based on? 6.3 or 7.8 million? 3. How exactly are the individual estimates figured out? In comparing our estimate to our neighbor, ours is $3088 and his is $4200. Now, of course I like the lower figure, but it doesn't really make sense to me since our property is affected by 2 assessments (one on Prairie Drive, 01 and one on Mill Road, 03) and his only one on Mill Road. I think we have more footage across the front than he does also, so why is our lower? Who's is wrong? I realize these are just preliminary estimates but do you see my confusion? Please clarify how you came up with these figures. Thank you, Melody Meath From: Melody Meath [mailto:mmeath@q.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 5:15 PM To: Meath, Melody Subject: Fw: question on cost estimates ~--- Original Message --~ From: Mej9.~Y_ Meath To: Statz, Mgr~B Cc: Teresa Bender Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 5:13 PM Subject: Re: question on cost estimates ( I don't know If you got my reply so I'll send it again. If I'm reading this right, you are saying only the people getting assessed are paying for sidewalks and trails, right? Why is that? Doesn't everybody use them therefore everyone "benefits" from them so why isn't everyone paying for them? Signed perplexed, Melody --- Original Message ---- From: Sta~, Mark R To: Mel9.~Y Meath Cc: dlarsQJJ@centervillemn.com ; MalQJJey, E:mlly l. ; Pglll Palzer Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 11: 18 AM Subject: RE: question on cost estimates Ms. Meath, c9~ (0 5/16/2008 Page 4 of5 The "sidewalk cost" represents each street's share of the total sidewalk and trail costs. If you'll notice, even streets without proposed sidewalks have been assigned sidewalk costs. Again, the total cost of sidewalks and trails on the project has been evenly distributed amongst all streets which are having street work done. Also, this spreadsheet only showS total costs and does not represent the amount being assessed to property owners. Some columns may be 100% assessed, some may not be assessed at all and others will fall somewhere in between. Prairie Drive shows a small cost under "water main cost" for replacement of corroding bolts. The City has had problems with regular steel bolts corroding and causing leaks. As we reconstruct streets, it is prudent to take care of that problem to avoid digging In your new street to fix a water main break. You'll n9tlce that all streets except the mill and overlay streets have this same cost even though they already have water main. The only other exceptions are the B2improvements where the water main is new enough to have been installed with corrosion resistant bolts. Again, this cost will not necessarily be assessed to you. Hope I answered your questions. Please feel to call or email if you need further clarification. Mark Statz, PE Associate Tel 651-604-4709 Cell 651-775-5126 mark.statz@bonestroo.com .. Bonestroo From: Melody Meath [mailto:mmeath@q.com] Sent: Saturday, April OS, 200812:29 PM To: statz, Mark R Subject: question on cost estimates Mark, In your "Appendix B" Cost Estimates for the 2009 Street and Utility Project your have a column for "sidewalk cost". Is this referring to the Bike path on Mill Road. If so, why are you calling it a sidewalk? Also, I thought this was being paid by the "City" as a whole so why Is It in the project assessments cost estimates? Looks to me like the people getting assessed will be paying for this twice. If I'm mistaken, please clarify. Also, why is Prairie Drive listed with $6800 for watermaln cost? Water is already down Prairie Drive. I have water from Praire Drive which this property was already assessed for. I know for a fact that you cannot assess a property twice for the same utility so lease explain this too. Thanks- Melody Meath 7246 Mill Road Page 1 of2 Teresa Bender From: Dallas Larson [dlarson@centervillemn.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 20088:57 AM To: 'Meath, Melody' Cc: Mary Capra; Teresa Bender Subject: RE: Assesssment Policy Questions Okay, we will not plan to meet today. I believe that I fully explained why the 01 and 03 street assessments are different in an earlier email. Corner lots are measured by using the short side frontage plus 20% of the long side frontage to get a total. If the type of improvement is different, then the footage fore each side would be multiplied times the unit rate for that type of improvement. The assessment policy is dated 1989, as you say. I looked at it after I came here thinking that it may need some attention, but found it to be pretty good. Further, it was used in 2004 for the first phase of the street pavement program. Unless there was something glaringly wrong, we would not want to change it in midstream. Interestingly, I had a call from someone in Lindstrom that was bein{l assessed for an imorovement. She hac questions of how we did assessments and concluded that she would rather be in Centerville. Sidewalks and trails could be paid for by the City, if the council were to choose that method. There is no reason that those costs cannot be part of an assessment either, as long as the costs assigned to a property is reasonably measure actual benefit. Finally, items in the Comprehensive Plan are not required to be funded atthe time of the plan. Many aspects of the plan are goals for the long term. 'Da{{as Larson, )laministrator City of Centervilfe 651-429-3232 -----Original Message----- From: Meath, Melody [mailto:mmeath@ericksenroed.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:20 AM To: dlarson@centervillemn.com Cc: tbender@centervillemn.com; Dan & Mary Capra Subject: Assesssment Policy Questions Oops, forgot attachment... ...... ... .Here ya go Dallas, I think I was able to get my questions I had for you on paper, (see attached) so we don't have to meet today. I would appreciate a response or comment to each question. If I'm still confused or unclear with your responses maybe we still meet in the future to discuss. Thank you, Melody 5/28/2008 Page 1 of 1 Teresa Bender From: Meath, Melody [mmeath@ericksenroed.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 20088:20 AM To: dlarson@centervillemn.com Cc: tbender@centervillemn.com; Dan & Mary Capra Subject: Assesssment Policy Questions Attachments: Assessment Policy Questions for Dallas_051408.pdf Oops, forgot attachment. . . .. . . .. . .. . Here ya go Dallas, I think I was able to get my questions I had for you on paper, (see attached) so we don't have to meet today. I would appreciate a response or comment to each question. If I'm still confused or unclear with your responses maybe we still meet in the future to discuss. Thank you, Melody This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.comlemail 5/28/2008 May 14,2008 ASSESSMENT POLICY QUESTIONS 1. I've heard the water main cost is an $6427.00, so why the differences between Dl, D2 and D3 if you separated the water main costs out? Shouldn't they all be the same, and then people with water main would add the additional $6427.00 or whatever that number is? If you look on the map the only difference between a D2 and D3 is water main services and if you separate it out as stated above then I should be a D2 in the front. What do these numbers include? $43.34 for a D3 and $29.30 for a Dl. 2. Corner lots - example 7426 Mill Road: 100 ft on Prairie (Dl=$29.30) 150 ft on Mill Road (D3=$43.34) 100 ft x 29.30 = $2930.00 + 20% of 150 ft = 30 ft x $43.34 = $1257.00 total = $2930.00 + $1257.00 = $4187.00. Is this correct? (Based on Assessment Policy - Sum of assessment cannot exceed 130 feet) 3. Is Assessment Policy outdated? It was last reviewed in 1989. Should it be reviewed to incorporate the City's Comprehensive Plan as other cities this size have done? If the sidewalks and trails are part of the Comprehensive Plan for the City then shouldn't the City pay 100% as the reason for them is to benefit the community as whole. Correct? Aren't there funds set aside for items in the Comprehensive Plan? May 14,2008 ASSESSMENT POLICY QUESTIONS CONT 4. Why are ALL streets in this project being assessed for the sidewalks and trails? This is not how I read the Assessment Policy. The policy reads "the abutting properties shall be assessed along with the street costs." So unless you revise the policy I don't think you can do that. Anyway, as stated above if the Comprehensive plan is driving this then the City as a whole should pay 100%. It does NOT state these costs to be shared by everyone in the project. 5. In Appendix "B" Cost Estimates in Bonestroo's report, there are several streets that have water main already and have a "water main cost" associated with it. I was told by Mark Statz that these costs are for the replacement of corroding bolts. He states that all streets except the mill and overlay have these costs. No place in the Assessment Policy does it say you can assess property owners for corroded bolts. I would think this is regular maintenance and be funded 100% by the city. If this project was not in the works how would this get done and who would pay for it? 6. Assessment Policy page 23 states Crack Sealing and Bituminous Seal Coating is regular maintenance and funded 100% by the City. How often are these to be done? Crack Sealing- Bituminous Seal Coating- Page 1 of 1 Teresa Bender From: Meath, Melody [mmeath@ericksenroed.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 14,20088:18 AM To: dlarson@centervillemn.com Cc: tbender@centervillemn.com; Dan & Mary Capra Subject: Assessment Policy Questions Dallas, I think I was able to get my questions I had for you on paper, (see attached) so we don't have to meet today. I would appreciate a response or comment to each question. If I'm still confused or unclear with your responses maybe we still meet in the future to discuss. Thank you, Melody This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.comlemail 5/28/2008 Page I of2 Teresa Bender From: Dallas Larson [dlarson@centervillemn.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:56 PM To: Teresa Bender Subject: FW: LaValle Drive Proposed Improvements (DRAFT) For the record. (j)affas Larson, Jldministrator City of Centerviffe 651-429-3232 -----Original Message----- From: Dean LaValle [mailto:dlavalle@PaR.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:51 PM To: dlarson@centervillemn.com Cc: laValle, Kathi; Dean laValle Subject: LaValle Drive Proposed Improvements (DRAFT) Dallas: We want to express our opinion regarding the proposed water main and service for LaValle Drive that is part of the proposed 2009 City Improvements. As the owners of the properties at 7242 and 7248 LaValle Drive, we believe that the water service is neither desired nor required. Both of these properties have excellent well water and relatively recently installed pumps. There is no necessity for incurring the cost of installing water service to these properties and and the resulting lower quality drinking water. We have heard that there have also been some discussions regarding possible improvements to the road, including possibly making it a city street. As a reminder, the lots and easements were originally designed to provide the properties along the lake side of the property line access when the second house was built on the road about 1962. It was then foreseen that when/if a developer chose to develop the field toward the Water Works and wanted to share a common road access to Main street, that developer would provide a complimentary strip of property, construct the road centered on the property line, and provide it to the city, as is normal for developing parcels. With the tennis court recently added along the drive, it is evident that there is no intention by the developer to have access from the parcel to Main Street by converting LaValle Drive into a city street. With regard to our properties, we therefore prefer to continue to self-maintain the road in cooperation with the other neighbors with whom we have maintenance agreements and are not interested in adding any additional access points to it. We can be reached at the phone numbers below if you wish to discuss these issues further. Dean & Kathi LaValle 7242 LaValle Drive Centerville, MN 55038 Home: 651.429.2448 Cell: Dean - 612.710.0234 Kathi - 651.269.4838 Work: Dean - 651.528.5241 Kathi - 651.407.4177 This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 5/28/2008 Page 1 of 1 Teresa Bender From: pbranch [pbranch@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 11: 15 AM To: capria@comcast.net; indyip1@aol.com; leeincville@earthlink.com; LindaBV@msn.com; mmlakso@yahoo.com; dlarson@centervillemn.com Cc: kstephan@centervillemn.com; tbender@centervillemn.com; dlarson@centervillemn.com Subject: Property Tax Increase Mayor Capra and council Members, At the request of two of my neighbors, I recently signed a petition to the council requesting that you all vote against the proposed property tax increase. With the economic down turn that we all are living with - this is simply the wrong time for an increase in the property tax rate. This is not an issue of either political party; this is a human issue. From January 2007 to March 2008 there were 22 foreclosures in Centerville. We live with historic high prices for gasoline and for food. The high cost of gas and food are reflected in every thing we buy. Many in our community are out of work or endanger of layoffs. Most of us will either not get a pay raise or will see a reduced pay raise this year. We all understand that the City's 2008/2009 income from property taxes is less that projected. But now is the time for the City to share it's citizens burden in a declining economy. I have met most of you. I know that you are motivated by a single and simply principle - to do what is best for the City and her citizens. What is best for the citizens is to reduce not increase the property tax rate. Thank You for your service to the community. We have a great little community and we all need to work hard to keep it so. Patrick Branch 1618 Hunters Ridge Lane Centerville, MN 55038 This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 5/28/2008 Page lof3 Teresa Bender From: Meath, Melody [mmeath@ericksenroed.com] Sent: Friday, May 09, 20086:38 AM To: Melody Meath Cc: dlarson@centervillemn.com; tbender@centervillemn.com Subject: RE: Mill Road a collector street? Mark, Thank you for your response. I have one comment though. Just because Center Street was done a certain way doesn't mean it was the correct way. Sometimes policies need to be changed not just continued because that is the way it was done in the past. If Center Street was done unfairly then those people should be reimbursed the difference not the other way around. Thanks- Melody From: Melody Meath [mailto:mmeath@q.com) sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 4:49 PM To: Meath, Melody Subject: Fw: Mill Road a collector street? ----- Original Message ----- From: Statz, Mark R To: Melody Meath Cc: Dallas Larson; Teresa Bender; Goodman, Ryan J ; Maloney, Emily L ; Long, Chris W; PPalzer@Centervillemn.com Sent: Thursday, May 08,20089:34 AM Subject: RE: Mill Road a collector street? Melody, I would generally agree with your research. Many cities do have collector road policies that put at least some of the burden on the city as a whole. In my experience, most cities will break out costs for collector roads which are above and beyond that of a normal road (e.g. extra width, extra thickness, etc.). Then the City pays for those costs above and beyond the normal City street section and assesses the homeowners an "equivalent" cost. In other words, the assessments reflect what they would have paid if they lived on a normal City street. While I cannot say what the council will do, I will say that a similar policy will likely be discussed. There are a few things that would work against this policy, however. First is the fact that folks on Center Street (another collector) were assessed in 2004. In the interest of consistency and fairness, it would be difficult to apply a different policy to your street only 5 years later. Secondly, Mill road isn't really being proposed to be built any wider or thicker than other streets in town at this time, so your costs aren't much different from others with the same type of improvements. Any difference comes mostly from the density of homes along the road who share in the cost. Again, the trail costs are currently being proposed to be spread across all properties on the project, not just assessed to Mill Road residents. Also, the City will be looking to see if the grant they received can help offset some of these costs. 5/28/2008 Page 2 of3 Hope this helps. Again, I cannot speak for the council, but assure you that they are looking very hard at any number of options ranging from doing the project as proposed to not doing it at all and everything in between. Please feel free to call me with any questions at the numbers listed below. Mark Statz, PE Associate Tel 651-604-4709 Cell 651-775-5126 mark.statz@bonestroo.com .. Bonestroo From: Melody Meath (mailto:mmeath@q.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 07,20086:52 PM To: Statz, Mark R Cc: Dallas Larson; Teresa Bender Subject: Mill Road a collector street? Mark, I've heard several people, including yourself, refer to Mill Road as a collector street. The definition I found is: "The Collector Street collects traffic from local streets in residential and industrial/commercial areas and channels it into the Arterial Roadway System (i.e. State and County roadways)" By this definition I would say that indeed Mill Road is a collector street. That being said, my understanding from the research that I have done, is that the "responsibility for collector streets usually falls to the local government and developers for funding, design and construction." Meaning, all future maintainence and construction (i.e. bike trails, road work) cannot be assessed to the property owners on the collector street but is paid for by the City as a whole. I have also found several cities with similar populations where it states in their Assessment Policy, "Bituminous walkways or bicycle trails to be installed as part of the City Comprehensive Plan will NOT be assessed, but rather funded 100% by the City." Our Assessment Policy is outdated with a revision date of 1989 and does not address a Comprehensive Plan at all. I for one, am concerned that the people on Mill Road will pay for this street several times because of the sheer volume of people using it and feel that if EVERYONE uses it, everyone should pay for it. I would appreciate you researching this issue further as I believe it is a valid concern. Sincerely, Melody Meath CONFIDENTIAliTY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail communication and any attached documentation may be privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s). It is not Intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized person. The use, distribution, transmittal or re-transmittal by an unintended recipient of this communication is strictly prohibited without our express approval in writing or bye-mail. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify the above sender so that our e-mail address may be corrected. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any attorney-client or work-product privilege. 5/28/2008 This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.comlemail 5/28/2008 Page 3 of3 Page 1 of2 Teresa Bender From: Dallas Larson [dlarson@centervillemn.com] Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 11 :09 AM To: Teresa Bender Subject: FW: Concerned Citizen For the record. q)affas Larson, Administrator City of Centerviffe 651-429-3232 -----Original Message----- From: Indyjpl@aol.com [mailto:lndyjpl@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 20089:59 PM To: Imanders@comcast.net Cc: dlarson@centervillemn.com Subject: Re: Concerned Citizen Tom and Laura, I appreciate your email.Being that you are new to Centerville J sure you have concerns. When I was elected to council the city was missing almost $400,000.00 in monies owed to us from developers, we were the highest taxed city in the state, and our staff was having internal trouble. Although our taxes are high, over the last 5 years the city's portion has gone down on average 7% and we are doing our best to get our downtown and other commercial areas moving along to attract more business to help with taxes. We hired Dallas Larson as our administrator and contrary to the word on the street he has done a great job of getting staff to work together and he restored order. Not to mention he has been a key part in our police and County 14 road project negotiations. I am not sure Mill Rd. needs a bike path. I want to discuss this with the rest of the council. The city has had trails on its comprehensive plan for along time. The city has also had a trail connect plan longer than I have been on council this can be viewed online as well as at city hall. I am willing to discuss the trails and sidewalks and come up with other less expensive options. As per my motion of bring it on, that was not professional of me and I can admit I made a mistake. When I ran in 2002 I had people calling my house telling me I am wasting time being in the race, I bring nothing to the city, I am a non factor. So I worked hard and went door to door and did TV and newspaper and ended up winning. When I ran for re-election in 2006 we had an input meeting and a resident got up and said J will make sure you do not get re-elected. I was re-elected again in 2006. And at all of the input meetings with this project IIwe keep being told come November you will be out of here! I guess I am tired of hearing that and I reacted to it. It has been hard to sit up front and have people yelling at you, swearing at you, telling half truths, and downright lies about you and goings on in the city. As for me getting up, I knew we were not going to get any breaks and I have bursitis in my right knee and I am also a diabetic. I needed to stretch my knee and use the rest room because of my diabetes. If you watch council meetings that go long I will get up and have to use the restroom. I have no problem talking to residents about the project and I am willing to make changes to the project. If people would just talk and be civil with me they would find that I am a good person and truly do love this city and want to do what is best. Again, thank you. Council member Jeff Paar 5/28/2008 Page 2 of2 In a message dated 5/7/2008 9:30:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Imanders@comcast.netwrites: Dear Mayor and City Council Representatives, I would like to comment on the meeting that was held on May 1 st. My husband and I bought a house in Centerville just over a year ago. We chose Centerville for the "small town feel" as well as getting more house for our money. We love our house, our neighborhood, and our community. We both work outside of Centerville, but the commute (combined mileage for both cars is 120 miles per day) did not persuade us from finding another suburb to live in as we set our "roots". The only downside that we saw in buying our house was the high tax rate. Our taxes almost doubled from our home in Vadnais Heights. We chose to live here despite that obstacle. With that said, we were saddened to receive the news that we would be assessed for road improvements approximately the same month we made our first house payment in 2007. Living on Mill Road, we have realized that it is a busier street than expected; however, we don't believe that putting in a bike path will increase the safety for the children in our neighborhood. If the road needed to be replaced, that would be more reasonable. However, from what we've learned, the road does not need to be replaced. If the bike path is passed, a big portion of our front yard will be taken away from us. With saying that, we could quite possibly have a wet basement majority of the year. Is the city going to pay for that damage? We must admit, we have not been to a council meeting prior to the May 1st meeting. It was a real eye opener to say the least. Mayor, we applaud you for reminding everyone that in order to have everyone's voice heard, professionalism needed to be followed. When you spend people's money for them, they tend to get a little uncomfortable. However, because you all had been elected, your duty is to make informed decisions based on the constituents wants. Unfortunately, Mr. Parr didn't follow the professionalism guideline on several instances. Being on the council, you should know that not everyone will like you, treat you fairly, use kind words, etc. Your gestures of "bring it on" were appalling. Hopefully, with a little hindsight, you realized that you were wrong. That is not how a representative should behave. Secondly, you got up while one of your citizens was voicing their concerns and left the meeting room. That is like a slap in the face to the man speaking. Please listen to the citizens, read the petitions, and consider what is at stake here before you vote on the project. Tom and Laura Freer 7231 Mill Road Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 5/28/2008 Page 1 of2 Teresa Bender From: Statz, Mark R [Mark.Statz@bonestroo.com] Thursday, May 08, 2008 9:35 AM Melody Meath Dallas Larson; Teresa Bender; Goodman, Ryan J; Maloney, Emily L; Long, Chris W; PPalzer@Centervillemn.com Subject: RE: Mill Road a collector street? Sent: To: Cc: Melody, I would generally agree with your research. Many cities do have collector road policies that put at least some of the burden on the city as a whole. In my experience, most cities will break out costs for collector roads which are above and beyond that of a normal road (e.g. extra width, extra thickness, etc.). Then the City pays for those costs above and beyond the normal City street section and assesses the homeowners an "equivalent" cost. In other words, the assessments reflect what they would have paid if they lived on a normal City street. While I cannot say what the council will do, I will say that a similar policy will likely be discussed. There are a few things that would work against this policy, however. First is the fact that folks on Center Street (another collector) were assessed in 2004. In the interest of consistency and fairness, it would be difficult to apply a different policy to your street only 5 years later. Secondly, Mill road isn't really being proposed to be built any wider or thicker than other streets in town at this time, so your costs aren't much different from others with the same type of improvements. Any difference comes mostly from the density of homes along the road who share in the cost. Again, the trail costs are currently being proposed to be spread across all properties on the project, not just assessed to Mill Road residents. Also, the City will be looking to see if the grant they received can help offset some of these costs. Hope this helps. Again, I cannot speak for the council, but assure you that they are looking very hard at any number of options ranging from doing the project as proposed to not doing it at all and everything in between. Please feel free to call me with any questions at the numbers listed below. Mark statz, PE Associate Tel 651-604-4709 Cell 651-775-5126 mark.statz@bonestroo.com .. Bonestroo From: Melody Meath [mailto:mmeath@q.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 6:52 PM To: Statz, Mark R Cc: Dallas Larson; Teresa Bender Subject: Mill Road a collector street? Mark, 5/2812008 Page 2 of2 I've heard several people, including yourself, refer to Mill Road as a collector street. The definition I found is: "The Collector Street collects traffic from local streets in residential and industrial/commercial areas and channels it into the Arterial Roadway System (i.e. State and County roadways)" By this definition I would say that indeed Mill Road is a collector street. That being said, my understanding from the research that I have done, is that the "responsibility for collector streets usually falls to the local government and developers for funding, design and construction." Meaning, all future maintainence and construction (i.e. bike trails, road work) cannot be assessed to the property owners on the collector street but is paid for by the City as a whole. I have also found several cities with similar populations where it states in their Assessment Policy, "Bituminous walkways or bicycle trails to be installed as part of the City Comprehensive Plan will NOT be assessed, but rather funded 100% by the City." Our Assessment Policy is outdated with a revision date of 1989 and does not address a Comprehensive Plan at all. I for one, am concerned that the people on Mill Road will pay for this street several times because of the sheer volume of people using it and feel that if EVERYONE uses it, everyone should pay for it. I would appreciate you researching this issue further as I believe it is a valid concern. Sincerely, Melody Meath CONFIDENTIAliTY NOTICE: The Information contained in this e-mail communication and any attached documentation may be privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s). It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized person. The use, distribution, transmittal or re-transmittai by an unintended recipient of this communication is strictly prohibited without our express approval in writing or bye-mall. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify the above sender so that our e-mail address may be corrected. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any attorney-client or work-product privilege. This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.comlemail 5/28/2008 Page 1 of 1 Teresa Bender From: Melody Meath [mmeath@q.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 07,20086:52 PM To: Mark Statz Cc: Dallas Larson; Teresa Bender Subject: Mill Road a collector street? Mark, I've heard several people, including yourself, refer to Mill Road as a collector street. The definition I found is: "The Collector Street collects traffic from local streets in residential and industrial/commercial areas and channels it into the Arterial Roadway System (i.e. State and County roadways)" By this definition I would say that indeed Mill Road is a collector street. That being said, my understanding from the research that I have done, is that the "responsibility for collector streets usually falls to the local government and developers for funding, design and construction." Meaning, all future maintainence and construction (i.e. bike trails, road work) cannot be assessed to the property owners on the collector street but is paid for by the City as a whole. I have also found several cities with similar populations where it states in their Assessment Policy, "Bituminous walkways or bicycle trails to be installed as part of the City Comprehensive Plan will NOT be assessed, but rather funded 100% by the City." Our Assessment Policy is outdated with a revision date of 1989 and does not address a Comprehensive Plan at all. I for one, am concerned that the people on Mill Road will pay for this street several times because of the sheer volume of people using it and feel that if EVERYONE uses it, everyone should pay for it. I would appreciate you researching this issue further as I believe it is a valid concern. Sincerely, Melody Meath This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 5/28/2008 Page 1 of2 Teresa Bender From: Meath, Melody [mmeath@ericksenroed.com) Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 7:06 AM To: dlarson@centervillemn.com Cc: tbender@centervillemn.com Subject: RE: Assessment question on 7246 Dallas, I am not satisfied with this response because I disagree with you. In the estimated assessment I received, you are assessing me for watermain on the front. A D3 construction at a cost of $43.34/ft DOES include watermain therefore you cannot assess me this price because my property already paid for watermain on Prairie Drive. That being said, the front of my property would be assessed the same as the side. A D1 with a cost of $29.30/ft which does not include watermain. Melody Meath 7246 Mill Road From: Dallas Larson [mailto:dlarson@centervillemn.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:30 PM To: Meath, Melody Subject: RE: Assessment question on 7246 No portion of your estimate includes water. (})a{{as Larson, }Ldministrator City of Centervi{(e 651-429-3232 -----Original Message----- From: Meath, Melody [mailto:mmeath@ericksenroed.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:27 PM To: dlarson@centervillemn.com Cc: tbender@centervillemn.com Subject: Assessment question on 7246 Dallas, On a different subject... ... .. I also wanted to ask you why we are (7246 Mill Road) considered a "03" improvement on the front of our property since we have city water already. I know for a fact you cannot assess a property twice for the same utility so wouldn't that make us a "01" also in the front? Since the only difference between 01 and D3 is water? Melody Meath This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.comJemail 5/28/2008 This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 5/28/2008 Page 2 of2 r---- ------- -- -- - - -- Page 1 of2 Teresa Bender From: Pamela Kennedy [pktk55038@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 2:37 PM To: capria@comcast.net; indyjp1@aol.com; lee_family@q.com; mmlakso@yahoo.com; Iindabv@msn.com; dlarson@centervillemn.com; kstephan@centervillemn.com; tbender@centervillemn.com Subject: Response to May 1, 2008 meeting May 4, 2008 Mayor Capra and Council Members: Nobody was paid to be at the May 1,2008 meeting, nobody that is except the city council. The rest of us were there because we care. Care about our city, our neighborhood and our neighbors. Many citizens spoke about concerns they have about the proposed road project. I heard people agreeing that portions of the proposed project needs to be done, but not one citizen that spoke agreed with city council that the entire scope of the project needs to be done at this time. Some issues that I can recall that were not addressed are: 1. What is city council doing to bring in more business to the city? 2. What is city council doing to keep the businesses that we have? 3. Why does Mill Road need a bike path at this time? 4. Why does Brian Way need a sidewalk? 5. Does everybody have to hook up to city water/sewer right away or can they wait? Does the word everybody mean everybody or just the unfortunate people selected? 6. If the road project cost goes up then why will my assessment also go up? How can the increase in property value be associated with the cost of the project? When I repair a problem at my house, my house does not increase in value by the full cost of material and labor. Many times there is not an increase in value at all. 7. What source or sources are being using to determine the amount my property value will increase due to the proposed road construction? My actions may not have been the calmest in the audience, but as Council Member Jeff Paar motioned to bring it on, we responded to his jester and brought it on. We hope that the citizen's voices have been heard and you respect our voices and change the scope of the project to include only the necessary improvements and to remove the 'luxury' portions of the project such as sidewalks and bike paths. Respectfully, Pamela Kennedy Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. 1M anytime you're online. This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 5/28/2008